Barriers to Co‐Governance: Examining the “Chemistry” of Home‐Care Networks in Germany, England, and Quebec
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims at studying the dynamics of organized home care and particular problems in the delivery of social services, analyzed against the background of the international recasting of welfare systems. Challenging an influential academic discourse on the advent of new forms of network governance thought to improve service provision, three jurisdictions—Germany, England, and Quebec—are compared with regard to how home‐care networks are actually configured and the rationales which appear to shape the interaction between network members. The article argues that notwithstanding the extensive literature extolling the virtues of network governance or the possibility of reconciling different governance modes, home care operates through arrangements embracing conflicting rationales. Rather than providing for mutual adjustment and shared perspectives, contemporary home‐care networks tend to produce tensions and outcome problems as a result of the “biased” interplay between various steering rationales within given institutional arrangements and different meta‐governance regimes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it